[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220920102803.rqj44xrz2szj3tqi@vireshk-i7>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 15:58:03 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@...nel.org>
Cc: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] cpufreq: qcom-hw: Move clocks to CPU node
On 30-08-22, 11:50, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 11:10:42AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 29-08-22, 22:24, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > > Conceptually, it sounds like a good idea to express the clock feeding
> > > the CPU clusters, which is controlled by the OSM/EPSS. But do you
> > > expect the OPP framework to actually do something with the clock, or
> > > just to ensure that the relationship is properly described?
> >
> > No, the OPP core will never try to set the clock rate in your case,
> > though it will do clk_get().
> >
>
> Okay. Then I think it is a fair argument to make qcom-cpufreq-hw as the
> clock provider for CPUs.
>
> I will send the RFC soon.
Ping.
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists